Are scientists often in a position to provide advice with holistic value? I'm usually quite skeptical of advice like this when it comes from someone who is laser focused on a specific domain.
When Jan Smuts coined the term [1], he was unfortunately at a too immature scientific stage to pave the way for a careful and thorough academic field of study. Moreover, due to his political full time occupation he never got to the stage of forming a precise idea of what he wanted his book to be about. I personally think that his book should have been a fine ecological assessment rather that a somewhat philosophical treatise.
But to answer your question, I think absolutely they are able to provide such advice, with the limitation that it would be holistic in a small and specific context. For example, recently a scientist commented to me that wildebeests being replaced by cattle (wildebeests are not endangered) does actually not negatively affect the microbial biodiversity. But the comment was about specific biomes in a specific area. When you move from grasslands to bushveld, then cattle have a side effect of stimulating the growth of sekelbos [2].
The way I take it, Holism and Evolution was Smuts's response to Darwin's work and in a more ideal world, Smuts's work could have been a nice addition to On the Origin of Species. Smuts's main observation was that the whole is often "greater than the sums of parts". I lament the lost opportunity, but this kind of idea even occurs in pure mathematics. That is why you take transitive closure when you take the union of two or more equivalence relations.
In the ecological context, what he essentially meant is that two species in isolation from each other, as a whole, has a smaller ecological impact than those same two species living interactively.
I have not read his book, but I understand it to be (in the scientific formulation sense) unfinished.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism, first sentence [2] https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekelbos
It has been widely observed that humans, having adapted to life in the African savannah, have a tendency to turn everything into an idealised version of their natural habitat.
Regents Park, or your local golf course, is like a superstimulus version of the nicer parts of prehistoric Kenya. Lots of nice green grass; not too long, indicating grazing animals nearby. Trees scattered around for shade, but not too many. A bunch of clearly visible landmarks for easy navigation. Flowers, indicating... fruit maybe? I’m not sure. Either way, it’s exactly the sort of environment that an omnivorous savannah ape ought to prefer over any other.
Anyway, I like lawns because my genes tell me to like lawns.
To reset my mind I take trees (that often come with some wild meadow and grass), or forest every time. A neatly trimmed lawn is for sports pitches.
Citation needed. My anecdotal experience doesn't agree.
> It has been widely observed...
Really? By who?
> ...that humans, having adapted to life in the African savannah,
Citation, again, needed. As far as I know, practically no ancient hominid artifacts have been found in the 'African savannah'.
> ...have a tendency to turn everything into an idealised version of their natural habitat.
Except that lawns are absolutely nothing at all like an 'African savannah'. And the fact that the largest part of humanity (India, China) live in habitats that resemble ant hills more than they do a savanna.
I for one would like drought tolerant (in CA anyway) native plant species to fill our lawn spaces...especially the ones that get rarely used.
But broadly speaking, I'm skeptical of taking advice from a domain expert rather than some form of generalist who synthesizes understanding across the board.
I want to know what the civil engineer has to say. I want to hear from the urban planner, the child psychologist, the sports medicine expert, etc. My yard is used in a lot of ways.
I agree with the latter sentence - I want to hear from a lot of people with narrow expertise and different perspectives on anything important, but I probably don't care what a generalist thinks, because why should they be better at synthesizing the experts than me?
For me I pick and choose. I pretty much leave my car and rooftop to the experts but I dabble in electrical, plumming, carpentry, landscaping, etc. Etc.
Your second sentence is about when you defer to experts and when you don't, so apparently you too are your own generalist.
There are no "expert generalists"! If you wanted one, you'd need an even more general generalist to choose which generalist was trustworthy...
I think my comment was misinterpreted, but it's not clear how.
it does require maintenance but choosing the right plants can do wonders